trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
The linear probability model is consistent with utility maximization
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
0 sources for · 1 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says

Retrieved literature indicates that the linear probability model is inconsistent with utility maximization concepts and should be replaced.

Evidence against · 1
Stochastic dominance and applications to finance, risk and economics
2010 · cited by 0
analyses are consistent with the concept of expected utility maximization. Given that no model is true, the … negative variance! Thus we should replace the linear probability model by another model which makes sense! … coefficient @ in the standard linear model is time-invariant. Thus, the linear regression is described by one
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:refuted:single_source:for=0+0p:against=1+0p | v55:sufficiency

Everything we examined (1)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Stochastic dominance and applications to finance, risk and economicsreferenceno side taken
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked06 Aug 2026
judged → REFUTED · 2506 Aug 2026
held for human review08 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt